Sphincter-preserving surgery
is possible for the majority of
patients who present with
rectal cancer.
J. J. Mahany, Jr. Mt. McKinley, 2002. Photograph. Reflecting Pond, Denali National Park,Alaska.
Methods and Results of Sphincter-Preserving
Surgery for Rectal Cancer
Deborah A. McNamara, MD, FRCSI, and Rolland Parc, MD, FRCS
Background: Sphincter preservation is the goal in the treatment of rectal cancer and should be considered in
all patients with an intact sphincter. Sphincter preservation for tumors of the upper rectum is easily achieved,
but surgical management of cancer of the mid and lower third of the rectum continues to evolve. Several recent
advances may influence future treatment strategies.
Methods: We reviewed the literature to identify the current methods of sphincter-preserving surgery and their
oncologic and functional results.
Results: Proctectomy with total mesorectal excision reduces the incidence of local recurrence to less than 10%
while preserving genitourinary function. The use of preoperative radiotherapy may further diminish the risk
of local recurrence. In selected patients, partial resection of the anal sphincter may avoid definitive colostomy
without compromising oncologic outcome. In contrast, the role of local resection of rectal cancer remains
controversial. Restoration of continuity by means of a colonic reservoir reduces stool frequency and urgency
and improves continence when compared to a straight coloanal anastomosis. The transverse colpoplasty
pouch may allow pouch construction in patients in whom it is currently impossible, but long-term follow-up is
not yet available.
Conclusions: Sphincter-preserving surgery is possible for the majority of patients with rectal cancer. Optimal
functional results may be obtained by a nerve-sparing operative technique and by use of a colonic reservoir
for reconstruction following resection of mid or low rectal cancers.
Introduction
From the Centre de Chirurgie Digestive, Hôpital Saint-Antoine,
Paris, France (RP), and Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland (DAM).
Submitted September 30, 2002; accepted December 24, 2002.
Address reprint requests to Prof. Rolland Parc, Chef de Service,
Centre de Chirurgie Digestive, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, 184, rue du
Faubourg Saint-Antoine, 75012 Paris, France.
No significant relationship exists between the authors and the
companies/organizations whose products or services may be referenced in this article.
Dr. McNamara is a Traveling Fellow of the Royal College of
Surgeons in Ireland 2001, and her work in Paris, France, was supported in part by an unrestricted traveling fellowship.
212 Cancer Control
Anterior resection, popularized by Dixon1 in the
1940s, was the first operation to allow patients with
rectal cancer to avoid a definitive stoma. While initially performed only in patients with tumors of the upper
third of the rectum, the transanal coloanal anastomosis2
extended the possibility of sphincter preservation
even to patients with very low rectal cancers. Despite
this advance, the oncologic results of surgery remained
May/June 2003, Vol. 10, No.3
variable, and the functional outcome, especially following low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis, could be
debilitating.
seminate proximally and radially, but rarely distally.
Williams8 reported no distal intramural spread in 76%
of rectal tumors, with a further 14% spreading less than
1 cm distally. Distal intramural spread exceeded 1 cm
in only 10% of tumors, all of which were poorly differentiated. As a result, patients with tumors as low as 2
cm above the dentate line may be suitable for a sphincter-preserving operation without compromising oncologic security. The recommended distal margin for an
oncologically safe resection is 1 cm for T1-2 lesions and
2 cm for T3-4 tumors.9
The oncologic and functional outcomes of sphincter-preserving curative surgery for middle and low rectal cancer were revolutionized by two developments:
recognition of the importance of the mesorectum in
the spread of rectal cancer3 and appreciation of the
necessity to replace the reservoir function of the
resected rectum.4,5 As a result, the majority of patients
with rectal cancer can now anticipate a sphincter-preserving operation with good functional results, a local
recurrence rate of less than 10%, and preservation of
genitourinary function. A number of possible advances
in the treatment of low rectal cancer are currently
under evaluation, including partial resection of the
internal sphincter, novel techniques of reservoir construction,6,7 the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and
the role of local resection in early rectal cancer. In this
paper, methods of sphincter-preserving surgery that are
established or currently under evaluation are discussed,
with an emphasis on oncologic and functional results.
The techniques described are most relevant for tumors
of the middle and lower thirds of the rectum, as sphincter preservation with negative resection margins is usually easily achieved in the upper third of the rectum.
Resection of the upper third of the anal sphincter
may allow even lower tumors to be safely resected
without abdominoperineal resection. Initial results
suggest that there are minimal adverse effects on postoperative continence.10 Continence is reported to be
unchanged from that found in patients undergoing
standard anterior resection if less than 1 cm of sphincter is excised, provided that a colonic reservoir is fashioned.11 Resection of a larger amount of sphincter
results in a degree of incontinence in 50% of patients at
4 years of follow-up.11 Currently, there is no evidence
of an oncologic disadvantage in patients treated with
partial sphincter resection instead of abdominoperineal resection, but longer-term oncologic and functional results are awaited.
Patient Selection
Preoperative Radiotherapy
Two predominant factors determine the suitability
of a patient with rectal cancer for a sphincter-preserving resection.
Recent evidence supports a role for preoperative
radiotherapy in rectal cancer. In a recent report, longcourse radiotherapy (usually 40-45 Gy over 5 weeks)
resulted in tumor downstaging in 40% and allowed
sphincter-preserving surgery in 80% of patients with
low rectal cancer.12 Combined radiotherapy and
chemotherapy increases the possibility of R0 resection
and improves local control.13 A multicenter trial
showed that short-course radiotherapy (25 Gy over 5
days) did not result in downstaging but was associated
with a decreased rate of local recurrence when compared to total mesorectal excision alone.14 Improved
local control did not result in increased survival at 2
years in this series.
The first requirement is the presence of a functioning, disease-free sphincter mechanism. A history of
preoperative incontinence should be specifically
noted, with a high level of suspicion for sphincter
injury in patients who have had previous anal surgery
or a complicated or prolonged vaginal delivery. Clinical
examination is essential, but endoanal ultrasound or
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be performed if sphincter integrity is in doubt. Direct invasion of the sphincter mechanism by tumor is a contraindication to sphincter preservation if a curative
resection is proposed. Sphincter preservation may be
considered if sphincter function is imperfect without
evidence of tumor invasion, but patients should be
warned of the possibility of poor continence following
surgery. Colonic pouch construction should always be
undertaken in such patients to optimize function.
The second criterion by which patients are selected for sphincter-preserving surgery is distance of the
tumor from the anal margin. Tumors of the rectum disMay/June 2003, Vol. 10, No.3
The use of preoperative high-dose radiotherapy
(60 Gy) has been proposed to allow sphincter-sparing
surgery for very low rectal cancers that would normally require abdominoperineal resection.15 Two weeks
after standard long-course (40 Gy) preoperative radiotherapy is completed, radiologic staging is repeated and
compared to pretreatment images. Patients with tumor
reduction of 30% or more receive a further tumor boost
to a total biological dose of 60 Gy followed by sphincter-preserving surgery; nonresponders go on to
Cancer Control 213
Table 1. — Results of Total Mesorectal Excision Without Adjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer
Study
Number
of Patients
Local Recurrence
(%)
Kapiteijn14 (2001)
908
8.2
Leong21 (2000)
117
9.3
81.4
7.3
71
12.6
70.5
–
342
7.0
83.0
–
MacFarlane (1993)
278
4.0
82.0
–
Dixon25 (1991)
218
6.4
64.0
1.0
Bolgnese (2000)
22
Enker (1999)
23
24
abdominoperineal resection without further radiotherapy. Using this approach, a sphincter preservation rate
of 70% and a local recurrence rate of 13% may be
achieved, but 20% of patients report poor long-term
functional results. This technique is currently under
evaluation in a randomized trial.
Preoperative radiotherapy increases overall postoperative morbidity, particularly septic complications,
but does not increase postoperative mortality.16 There
is some evidence that the adverse effects of radiotherapy are more common in patients receiving a biological
dose in excess of 30 Gy.16 Radiotherapy may also result
in impaired postoperative continence and increased
frequency of defecation. This has been attributed to
radiation injury to the sphincter and distal rectum.
Exclusion of the anal sphincter from the field of radiation plus total proctectomy with mucosectomy followed by reconstruction using a colonic pouch-anal
anastomosis has been shown to minimize postoperative anorectal dysfunction.17
Low Anterior Resection and
Total Mesorectal Excision
The key to an oncologically sound resection of mid
or low rectal cancer is the en bloc resection of the rectum and its enveloping mesentery to the level of the
pelvic floor with a negative distal and radial resection
margin. This technique, total mesorectal excision
(TME),3 consists of sharp dissection of the predominantly avascular plane between the parietal and visceral pelvic fascia. Anteriorly, the specimen contains the
intact Denonvilliers’ fascia and the peritoneal reflection. Autonomic nerve preservation requires identification and sparing of the preaortic superior hypogastric
plexus as well as the bilateral hypogastric nerves that
join the sacral parasympathetic nerves to form the inferior hypogastric plexus anterolaterally on both
sides.18,19 Standardized application of this technique
has been demonstrated to improve oncologic outcome,
214 Cancer Control
Survival (%)
2-Yr
5-Yr
81.8
Leak (%)
–
reducing the incidence of local recurrence to less than
10% without the use of adjuvant treatment.20 The incidence of local recurrence may be further reduced by
the use of preoperative radiotherapy.14 There is some
controversy about the role of TME for tumors of the
upper rectum, as many surgeons advocate a lesser
resection with division of the mesorectum 5 cm below
the tumor followed by direct colorectal anastomosis.
However, for cancer of the mid or low rectum, proctectomy with TME is the cornerstone of oncologic
treatment, irrespective of the reconstructive technique
chosen for restoration of continuity (Table 1).14,21-25
A high standard of pathological reporting, especially of nodal status and radial margins, is important to the
success of this technique because it permits more accurate assessment of prognosis and improves the selection
of patients for adjuvant therapy. A positive radial margin
is a negative prognostic indicator with sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values of 92%, 95%, and
85%, respectively.26 Tumor-free radial margins of less
than 1 mm increase the risk of distant metastases threefold to 38% when compared to a margin greater than 1
mm.27 A tumor-free radial margin in excess of 2 mm is
preferable to minimize local recurrence as such patients
have an incidence of local recurrence of 5.8% vs 16% for
patients with a lesser margin.27 Preoperative MRI allows
accurate prediction of tumor invasion of the circumferential resection margin28 and may help to identify
patients likely to benefit from neoadjuvant radiotherapy.
Total mesorectal excision followed by immediate
restoration of continuity is associated with a higher
incidence of anastomotic leakage than previous techniques of resection for rectal cancer have obtained.
An incidence of clinically detected anastomotic leakage
of 12.6% has been reported following low anterior
resection, even in patients considered low risk for anastomotic dehiscence. This was reduced to 3.3% if a
diverting stoma was created.29 In this randomized
study, construction of a straight anastomosis following
total proctectomy resulted in a significantly higher rate
May/June 2003, Vol. 10, No.3
of symptomatic anastomotic leakage (15%) when compared to colonic pouch-anal anastomosis (2%). This is
partly attributable to the use of a temporary stoma in
71% of patients in whom a reservoir was constructed
vs only 59% of those with a straight anastomosis. A further series reported an anastomotic leak rate of 17% for
low colorectal anastomosis without a defunctioning
stoma, 7% for low colorectal anastomosis with a stoma,
and 4.9% for a colonic pouch-anal anastomosis with a
defunctioning stoma.30 Patients with a nondefunctioned low colorectal anastomosis are more likely to
develop peritonitis than patients with either a colorectal or colonic pouch-anal anastomosis with a protective
defunctioning stoma.30 As a result, most colorectal
surgeons perform routine defunctioning stomas in
patients with a colonic pouch and have a policy of liberal use of stomas in straight low anastomoses. The preferred temporary stoma is a loop ileostomy, which is
associated with significantly fewer stoma-related complications than a transverse colostomy.31
Local Resection of Low Rectal Tumors
Local resection of early rectal cancer using either a
standard transanal approach or endoscopic microsurgery (TEMS) has been suggested but no randomized
trial exists to support this approach. Transanal resection allows anal sphincter preservation while avoiding
the risks of abdominal surgery, but its oncologic acceptability remains controversial. A recent meta-analysis
indicates that local recurrence occurs in 9.7% of
patients (range 0%–24%) of patients with T1 tumors,
25% (range 0%–67%) of those with T2 tumors, and 38%
(range 0%–100%) of those with T3 tumors.32 These
results are improved by the addition of preoperative
chemoradiotherapy.33 Safe application of this technique requires accurate preoperative staging, careful
transanal resection, and meticulous histological examination. Factors that increase the risk of recurrence following local resection include T stage, poor histological
grade, lymphovascular invasion, and positive excision
margins.32 However, even in patients who were carefully selected according to these criteria, local recurrence rates of 18% for T1 tumors and 37% for T2 tumors
have been reported.34 At present, this technique should
be restricted to patients unsuitable for abdominal
surgery in whom local resection with adjuvant
chemoradiation is possible.
Restoration of Continuity After
Sphincter-Preserving Resection
Reconstructive options following a sphincter-sparing resection for rectal cancer include straight colMay/June 2003, Vol. 10, No.3
orectal anastomosis, straight coloanal anastomosis, and
colonic pouch-anal anastomosis. Several factors must
be considered in the selection of an appropriate technique for restoration of continuity if postoperative
neorectal function is to be optimized. Proctectomy
with a very low anastomosis can result in altered
anorectal function, the so-called “anterior resection
syndrome,” which is characterized by frequency,
urgency, and soiling35 and is thought to be due to the
loss of the reservoir function of the remaining rectum,
as well as diminished compliance. The level of anastomosis may be a determinant factor36 since, in general,
the lower the level of anastomosis, the more adverse
the functional outcome. This is supported by reports
that patients undergoing very low anterior resection
have poorer quality of life scores than those undergoing high anterior resection37 or even abdominoperineal resection.38 Postoperative function is also
impaired in patients who have a straight colorectal
anastomosis and receive postoperative radiotherapy or
in those who have preoperative radiotherapy followed
by anastomosis of colon to an irradiated rectal remnant.17 Direct coloanal anastomosis is associated with
particularly poor functional results, with patients experiencing increased frequency of defecation, increased
nocturnal defecation, fecal urgency, and incontinence.
Although potentially debilitating, these functional
problems may be considered acceptable by a patient
for whom straight coloanal anastomosis is the sole
option if colostomy is to be avoided.
The poor functional results and the high rate of
anastomotic leakage reported after both low colorectal
and straight coloanal anastomoses led to the development of the colonic pouch.4,5 This J-shaped reservoir of
6 to 7 cm in length is anastomosed to the anal margin in
a modification of Parks technique of sutured transanal
anastomosis,2 although some surgeons prefer a stapled
anastomosis. Successful reconstruction using a J pouch
requires well-vascularized colon and a tension-free anastomosis, facilitated by high ligation of the inferior
mesenteric vein, preservation of the paracolic arcade of
Riolan, and complete mobilization of the splenic flexure. Rarely, transmesenteric passage of the colonic
pouch is necessary to minimize tension. Our experience with this technique of colonic pouch-anal anastomosis4 has been favorable,39,40 and use of the technique
has been associated with low morbidity and mortality.
Use of a colonic reservoir results in significant
improvement in both the maximal tolerable volume and
the threshold volume prior to sensing the urge to defecate when compared to straight coloanal anastomosis.
Improved function has been demonstrated as early as 6
weeks after surgery,6 confirming that construction of a
reservoir is beneficial even in patients who may have
Cancer Control 215
limited survival.41 This improved function includes
reduced urgency and frequency of defecation (Table 2),
improved continence, and reduced nocturnal defecation when compared to a straight anastomosis.44
Some evacuation problems are reported following
coloanal anastomosis; up to 20% of patients require the
use of enemas or suppositories to evacuate the pouch.
This has been attributed to the use of excessively large
reservoirs with pouches as large as 12 cm reported in
some early series.5 Even with smaller pouches, a
degree of difficulty in evacuation occurs. Although
evacuatory difficulties are inconvenient, they are easily
addressed by the use of enemas, and patients generally
remain asymptomatic in the intervals between evacuation.4 In contrast, patients who have a low anterior
resection or straight coloanal anastomosis may be troubled by excessive frequency resulting in anal excoriation with constant discomfort.
A modified reservoir, the transverse colpoplasty
pouch, is currently being evaluated as a possible alternative to the colonic J pouch.7 It is a smaller volume
reservoir that may be useful in patients in whom it is
not possible to use a J pouch due to a small pelvis, a
thickened mesentery, or a short mesocolon. Its smaller volume and the absence of an antiperistaltic limb
may result in a reduced incidence of difficulty in
pouch evacuation.7 Initial reports indicate that func-
tional results are similar to those achieved following
colonic J pouch-anal anastomosis, although postoperative morbidity is greater.45 Our current policy is to
restrict the use of this technique to patients taking part
in a randomized trial.
Genitourinary Function After SphincterSparing Surgery for Rectal Cancer
Sexual Function
Surgery for rectal cancer may decrease male sexual
function, but the introduction of TME with autonomic
nerve preservation has significantly increased the number of men with preserved postoperative sexual function.19,47 In a prospective study of sexual function
before and after rectal cancer surgery,TME significantly
preserved the ability to achieve orgasm and to ejaculate
when compared to standard rectal cancer surgery.19 In
a retrospective evaluation of sexual function following
TME, 86% of patients less than 60 years of age and 67%
of patients older than 60 years maintained their ability
to engage in sexual intercourse, while 87% of all men
maintained their ability to have an erection following
TME. Retrograde ejaculation occurs rarely but does not
diminish the patient’s capacity for normal sexual activity.48 The effects of TME for rectal cancer on female sexual function are less clear. One study reports main-
Table 2. — Number of Bowel Movements per 24 Hours in Patients Following Anterior Resection
According to Technique of Reconstruction and Duration of Follow-Up
Follow-Up
Median # Bowel Movements per 24 Hours
Coloanal Anastomosis
Colonic J Pouch
P Value
Lazorthes5 (1986)
<1 yr
>1 yr
3.6
3.0
2.4
1.7
<.01
<.01
Nicholls42 (1988)
47 mos (coloanal anastomosis)*
7 mos (colonic J pouch)*
2.3
1.4
NS
1 mo
6 mos
1 yr
4 (range 2–20)
4 (range 0.5–6)
2 (range 0.5–10)
2.5 (range 0.5–10)
2 (range 0.5–6)
2 (range 0.5–4)
<.03
<.007
<.05
1 yr
6 (range 3–7)
3 (range 2–7)
.02
Hallbook44 (1996)
2 mos
1 yr
6.4
3.5
2.0
2.0
<.001
<.001
Lazorthes41 (1997)
3 mos
1 yr
2 yrs
5.0
4.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
<.01
<.01
<.01
Mantyh6 (2001)
6 wks
4.5
3.1
<.05
Harris46 (2001)
47 mos (median)
2.0
2.0
NS
Seow-Choen43 (1995)
Ho45 (1996)
* Mean duration of follow-up.
NS = not significant.
216 Cancer Control
May/June 2003, Vol. 10, No.3
tained female sexual function, with 85% experiencing
vaginal lubrication and 91% achieving orgasm.49 A
higher proportion of women patients report sexual
inactivity or indifference prior to surgery, resulting in
greater difficulty in accurate evaluation of their postoperative status.19,48,50
Urinary Function
Changes in bladder function following sphinctersparing surgery for rectal cancer are rare.30,40 A
prospective study comparing TME with blunt dissection reported increased difficulty in bladder emptying
following TME, especially in patients with imperfect
preoperative function.19 There was no difference
between groups in sensation of incomplete emptying,
urgency, leakage, dysuria, or postmicturition dribbling.
A larger retrospective series identified no cases of serious urinary dysfunction following TME,49 and most
reported cases are transitory in nature.48
Conclusions
Sphincter preservation should be considered in all
patients with a functioning sphincter mechanism and a
rectal cancer more than 2 cm above the dentate line.
This limit continues to descend as initial experience
with partial sphincter resection proves satisfactory.
Tumors of the middle and lower third of the rectum
should be treated by anterior resection with TME,
although this may not be necessary for all tumors of the
upper rectum. Routine application of this technique
reliably results in rates of local recurrence below 10%
without the use of adjuvant therapy and with good
preservation of postoperative genitourinary function.
Neorectal function following anterior resection varies
according to the level of anastomosis but may improve
with the routine use of a colonic reservoir in patients
with tumors of the mid or lower rectum. Early postoperative complications are minimized by a policy of liberal use of a temporary diverting loop ileostomy.
References
1. Dixon CF. Anterior resection for malignant lesions of the
upper part of the rectum and lower part of the sigmoid. Ann Surg.
1948;128:425-442.
2. Parks AG, Percy JP. Resection and sutured colo-anal anastomosis for rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg. 1982;69:301-304.
3. Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD. The mesorectum in rectal
cancer surgery: the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg. 1982;69:
613-616.
4. Parc R,Tiret E, Frileux P, et al. Resection and colo-anal anastomosis with colonic reservoir for rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg. 1986;
73:139-141.
5. Lazorthes F, Fages P, Chiotasso P, et al. Resection of the rectum
with construction of a colonic reservoir and colo-anal anastomosis
for carcinoma of the rectum. Br J Surg. 1986;73:136-138.
6. Mantyh CR, Hull TL, Fazio VW. Coloplasty in low colorectal
May/June 2003, Vol. 10, No.3
anastomosis: manometric and functional comparison with straight
and colonic J-pouch anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44:37-42.
7. Z’graggen K, Maurer CA, Birrer S, et al. A new surgical concept for rectal replacement after low anterior resection: the transverse coloplasty pouch. Ann Surg. 2001;234:780-785.
8. Williams NS. The rationale for preservation of the anal
sphincter in patients with low rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1984;71:575581.
9. Nelson H, Petrelli N, Carlin A, et al. Guidelines 2000 for colon
and rectal cancer surgery. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:583-596.
10. Rullier E, Zerbib F, Laurent C, et al. Intersphincteric resection
with excision of internal anal sphincter for conservative treatment of
very low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42:1168-1175.
11. Gamagami R, Istvan G, Cabarrot P, et al. Fecal continence following partial resection of the anal canal in distal rectal cancer: longterm results after coloanal anastomoses. Surgery. 2000;127:291-295.
12. Bozzetti F,Andreola S, Baratti D, et al. Preoperative chemoradiation in patients with resectable rectal cancer: results on tumor
response. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:444-449.
13. Rullier E, Goffre B, Bonnel C, et al.
Preoperative
radiochemotherapy and sphincter-saving resection for T3 carcinomas
of the lower third of the rectum. Ann Surg. 2001;234:633-640.
14. Kapiteijn E, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, et al. Preoperative
radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable
rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:638-646.
15. Rouanet P, Saint-Aubert B, Lemanski C, et al. Restorative and
nonrestorative surgery for low rectal cancer after high-dose radiation:
long-term oncologic and functional results. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;
45:305-315.
16. Camma C, Giunta M, Fiorica F, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy for resectable rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2000;284:
1008-1015.
17. Dehni N, McNamara DA, Schlegel RD, et al. Clinical effects of
preoperative radiation therapy on anorectal function after proctectomy and colonic J-pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;
45:1635-1640.
18. Heald RJ. The “holy plane” of rectal surgery. J R Soc Med.
1988;81:503-508.
19. Maurer CA, Z’graggen K, Renzulli P, et al. Total mesorectal
excision preserves male genital function compared with conventional rectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg. 2001;88:1501-1505.
20. Martling AL, Holm T, Rutqvist LE, et al. Effect of a surgical
training programme on outcome of rectal cancer in the County of
Stockholm. Stockholm Colorectal Cancer Study Group, Basingstoke
Bowel Cancer Research Project. Lancet. 2000;356:93-96.
21. Leong AF. Selective total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43:1237-1240.
22. Bolgnese A, Cardi M, Muttillo IA, et al. Total mesorectal excision
for surgical treatment of rectal cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2000;74:21-23.
23. Enker WE, Merchant N, Cohen AM, et al. Safety and efficacy of
low anterior resection for rectal cancer: 681 consecutive cases from
a specialty service. Ann Surg. 1999;230:544-552.
24. MacFarlane JK, Ryall RD, Heald RJ. Mesorectal excision for
rectal cancer. Lancet. 1993;341:457-460.
25. Dixon AR, Maxwell WA, Holmes JT. Carcinoma of the rectum:
a 10-year experience. Br J Surg. 1991;78:308-311.
26. Quirke P, Durdey P, Dixon MF, et al. Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection: histopathological study of lateral tumour spread and surgical excision. Lancet.
1986;2:996-999.
27. Nagtegaal ID, Marijnen CA, Kranenbarg EK, et al. Circumferential margin involvement is still an important predictor of local
recurrence in rectal carcinoma: not one but two millimeters is the
limit. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:350-357.
28. Beets-Tan RG, Beets GL, Vliegen RF, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in tumour-free resection margin in rectal
cancer surgery. Lancet. 2001;357:497-504.
29. Poon RT, Chu KW, Ho JW. Prospective evaluation of selective
defunctioning stoma for low anterior resection with total mesorectal
excision. World J Surg. 1999;23:463-467.
30. Dehni N, Schlegel RD, Cunningham C, et al. Influence of a
defunctioning stoma on leakage rates after low colorectal anastomosis and colonic J pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg. 1998;85:11141117.
Cancer Control 217
31. Edwards DP, Leppington-Clarke A, Sexton R, et al. Stoma-related complications are more frequent after transverse colostomy than
loop ileostomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg.
2001;88:360-363.
32. Sengupta S,Tjandra JJ. Local excision of rectal cancer: what
is the evidence? Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44:1345-1361.
33. Kim CJ,Yeatman TJ, Coppola D, et al. Local excision of T2 and
T3 rectal cancers after downstaging chemoradiation. Ann Surg.
2001;234:352-359.
34. Garcia-Aguilar J, Mellgren A, Sirivongs P, et al. Local excision
of rectal cancer without adjuvant therapy: a word of caution. Ann
Surg. 2000;231:345-351.
35. McDonald PJ, Heald RJ. A survey of postoperative function
after rectal anastomosis with circular stapling devices. Br J Surg.
1983;70:727-729.
36. Lewis WG, Holdsworth PJ, Stephenson BM, et al. Role of the
rectum in the physiological and clinical results of coloanal and colorectal anastomosis after anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Br
J Surg. 1992;79:1082-1086.
37. Renner K, Rosen HR, Novi G, et al. Quality of life after surgery
for rectal cancer: do we still need a permanent colostomy? Dis
Colon Rectum. 1999;42:1160-1167.
38. Grumann MM, Noack EM, Hoffmann IA, et al. Comparison of
quality of life in patients undergoing abdominoperineal extirpation
or anterior resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2001;233:149-156.
39. Berger A, Tiret E, Parc R, et al. Excision of the rectum with
colonic J pouch-anal anastomosis for adenocarcinoma of the low and
mid rectum. World J Surg. 1992;16:470-477.
40. Dehni N,Tiret E, Singland JD, et al. Long-term functional outcome after low anterior resection: comparison of low colorectal
anastomosis and colonic J-pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41:817-823.
41. Lazorthes F, Chiotasso P, Gamagami RA, et al. Late clinical outcome in a randomised prospective comparison of colonic J pouch
and straight coloanal anastomosis. Br J Surg. 1997;84:1449-1451.
42. Nicholls RJ, Lubowski DZ, Donaldson DR. Comparison of
colonic reservoir and straight colo-anal reconstruction after rectal
excision. Br J Surg. 1988;75:318-320.
43. Seow-Choen F, Goh HS. Prospective randomized trial comparing J colonic pouch-anal anastomosis and straight coloanal reconstruction. Br J Surg. 1995;82:608-610.
44. Hallbook O, Pahlman L, Krog M, et al. Randomized comparison of straight and colonic J pouch anastomosis after low anterior
resection. Ann Surg. 1996;224:58-65.
45. Ho YH, Tan M, Seow-Choen F. Prospective randomized controlled study of clinical function and anorectal physiology after low
anterior resection: comparison of straight and colonic J pouch anastomoses. Br J Surg. 1996;83:978-980.
46. Harris GJ, Lavery IC, Fazio VW. Function of a colonic J pouch
continues to improve with time. Br J Surg. 2001;88:1623-1627.
47. Pocard M, Zinzindohoue F, Haab F, et al. A prospective study
of sexual and urinary function before and after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer. Surgery.
2002;131:368-372.
48. Nesbakken A, Nygaard K, Bull-Njaa T, et al. Bladder and sexual dysfunction after mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg.
2000;87:206-210.
49. Havenga K, Enker WE, McDermott K, et al. Male and female
sexual and urinary function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for carcinoma of the rectum. J Am Coll
Surg. 1996;182:495-502.
50. Banerjee AK. Sexual dysfunction after surgery for rectal cancer. Lancet. 1999;353:1900-1902.
218 Cancer Control
May/June 2003, Vol. 10, No.3